Sacramento Proposals of Times Past

[wburg]

The problem is that building affordable units in the central city can't be done without subsidy--the price of land is too expensive, and you can't just slap together cheap OSB and drywall single-family homes the way you can in a suburban neighborhood. The Warren is actually price-subsidized a bit, which is why the units are as affordable as they are. $400,000 is cheaper than the units at 17th and L or the ones above the Marriott, and they offer things that little single-family houses in the suburbs don't--like immediate proximity to the capitol and nearby state and business buildings, no lawn to take care of, views of Capitol Park and the coastal mountains. The units are affordable to someone making $60-80K a year, and for someone who works downtown, they probably wouldn't need to own a car, or if they did, they wouldn't have to drive to work, thus saving that expense.

Proximity and location are factors in home ownership--remember, the three rules of real estate are "location, location, location," not "square footage, square footage, square footage."

[Korey]

Gonna keep this derail going a bit more....

It's nice to see stuff go up in the grid but when I can buy a full on house (Not in midtown but Alkalai/Mansion/Southside Park) for less than 400K no way am I going to buy a condo, views or no.

Really wish the East End Gateway building had gone up instead of this Warren, looked much nicer.

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by wburg

The problem is that building affordable units in the central city can't be done without subsidy--the price of land is too expensive, and you can't just slap together cheap OSB and drywall single-family homes the way you can in a suburban neighborhood. The Warren is actually price-subsidized a bit, which is why the units are as affordable as they are. $400,000 is cheaper than the units at 17th and L or the ones above the Marriott, and they offer things that little single-family houses in the suburbs don't--like immediate proximity to the capitol and nearby state and business buildings, no lawn to take care of, views of Capitol Park and the coastal mountains. The units are affordable to someone making $60-80K a year, and for someone who works downtown, they probably wouldn't need to own a car, or if they did, they wouldn't have to drive to work, thus saving that expense.

Proximity and location are factors in home ownership--remember, the three rules of real estate are "location, location, location," not "square footage, square footage, square footage."

I understand you pay for location, but what I'm saying is a 600 sq ft 1-bedroom apartment is hardly a "singly family home". And the types of people who are the target buyers (young working professionals) can't afford those places. 400k? No young professional can afford that, especially today. There does not exist the demographics to support places which cost that much for so little.

[wburg]

Single-family homes are nice if you like single-family homes. Some folks don't like doing yard work and want a higher-altitude view. Others just like new buildings.

Most of the units in The Warren are priced for people making $60-80K a year, the larger ones are market-rate. Where are you getting the figures about $400K for 600 sf? In any case--the East End Gateway was intended to be all market rate, so its units would have been even more expensive.

[innov8]

The Metropolitan

I think it’s safe to say the Metropolitan won’t be built. Without subsides, it
appears most large residential projects won’t get off the ground and the
permit to build has just expired.

Northeast corner of 10th & J Streets
40 Story tower/ 435 ft
Architect Kwan Henmi
Developer: John Saca
652,000 total sq. ft.
7,000-11,000 square foot restaurant at the ground floor
190 unit residential condo
190 room hotel tower
Swimming pool on roof
975 parking spaces

This project was first propose in 2007 and died 2011 due to the continue
decline in real estate prices and economic recession.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

That one saddens me. It really looked like a top notch project, and it would've done a lot for downtown and Cesar Chavez Plaza.

[downtownserg89]

Went for a bike ride around the flats earlier and couldn't help wonder if this project was considered dead.




Since the Alkali Flat neighborhood is finally getting the much needed attention it deserves, this project would make more sense now compared to 2008 when I first read about it.

[innov8]

This was a glance at what downtown had proposed in September of 1988. Back then the Central
Library Tower was to be only 14 stories but later became 25. Also, you’ll notice
6 towers planned for the R Street Corridor. For the next two years neighborhood activist
like the Sacramento Old City Association and Environmental Council of Sacramento
asked to City to limit the size of high-rises proposed for the area and put a building
moratorium on the R Street Corridor area for a year till all concerns were addressed.
By late 1989 one of the proposals canceled their plans while California Capitol Center
downsized their projects in an attempt to meet opposition halfway. The California
Capitol Center went from 39 stories to 15, housing planned for the project was cut in
half to just over 200 units and the hotel portion was removed. By early 1990, this project
and another abandon their plans with the building moratorium still in place
and costs rising. By mid 1990, the city lift the moratorium putting additional fees
in place for all high rises built downtown but outside the central business district.

[innov8]

This was an idea that was floated by both Westfield and BFDM in 2005-06.

[innov8]

Centrage Project Time Machine



What is now becoming McKinley Village was once the proposed site for the
Centrage Project, an alternative to suburban sprawl. Back in 1988 this $500
million, European-style self-contained community outraged neighboring east
Sacramento residence and the Sacramento Old City Association. Centrage
was a high density, transit oriented development that was to be built out
over 10 years. At full build out the project would consist of 750,000 square
feet of office space, 230,000 sf of retail, 1200 residential units, 250 room
hotel, amphitheater, movie theater, 4.5 acre lake, greenbelts, bicycle paths,
tennis courts, swimming pools, other outdoor recreation areas, and parking
for around 6000 cars. Originally 8 highrises were proposed ranging from 26
to 10 stories. In an effort to satisfy anti-Centrage folk, towers were reduced
in size but the opposition were not happy demanding that 50% of the 48
acres be turned into parks and open area. Centrage was one of the most
controversial developments in recent Sacramento history, but after nearly a
5 year of heated debate and several reductions in size to win over local
residences and City Council, the project was abandon. Below are a couple
renderings showing what might have been.



Revised plans removed one of the eight planned towers for the project and
reduced the size of some of the remaining seven, 26 to 19 story building
(one), 16 story buildings (two), 18 to 12 story building (one), 11 to 8 story
building (one), 10 story building (one), eliminated one 10 story building,
8 story building (one), 2-6 story building (12)


Centrage Project site plan proposed in 1988

img host
Centrage Project building height comparison 1988


Centrage Project rendering showing originally proposed height of 26 story
tower later reduced to 19 stories looking west from the Capitol Freeway


Centrage Project map overview



Today the 48 acre parcel located between E Street and the Capitiol City
Freeway resembles a sprawling suburban neighborhood that's not unique
or interesting in any way.


McKinley Village currently under construction

[Surefiresacto]

From Sacramento Public Library - Sacramento Room archives



Herold’s idea – published in the February 1916 Architect and Engineer – was to turn the area around today’s Central Library into a Civic Center with a library, museum, art gallery, and auditorium with today’s Chavez Park (then known as Plaza Park) sitting as the central hub. At this time, the Progressive Movement was on the wane, but a lot of the group’s tenets live on, especially in Sacramento. In the case of the new library, the Progressives and those who were proponents of the City Beautiful Movement felt that despite the hyper-industrialization of American cities, in our case, Western Pacific and Southern Pacific railroad shops, the canneries, and so much more, urban centers could still be really great places to live. Key to this would be the creation of points of architectural and civic pride which, the Progressives believed, would not only provide refuge from labor, but inspire more virtuous behavior in its citizens – the Italianate-style library, the Rococo-style City Hall, Southside and William Land parks, the State Capitol extensions between 9th and 10th streets, and the Greco-Roman/Byzantine-style Memorial Auditorium are living testaments to that idea. Obviously, the fullness of Herold’s ambitious vision (he was a private citizen, but quite well respected) never materialized, but two years after this feature ran, Main Library opened in April 1918, designed by San Francisco-based architect Loring Rixford, all with a crazy world war going on and the influenza pandemic on its way.

From the February 1916 Architect and Engineer.

[Dieler]

Originally Posted by Surefiresacto

From Sacramento Public Library - Sacramento Room archives

Very cool. Thanks for sharing this!

[innov8]

Knott's Berry Farm once tried to buy up some land north of Old Town
Sacramento and make it into a Theme Park called "Knott's Landing".
The theme park was proposed in the mid 90's and would have been along
the Sacramento River and Old Sacramento. From what I have seen, the
proposal was quite detailed, but in the end it ran afoul of the
Old Sacramento Master plan. It appears the "I" Street bridge would have
been dismantled and new bridge built where one is currently in the planning
stages. It also included a baseball stadium about the size of the Rivercats
ballpark and an indoor arena. It also looks as if the train tracks would have
been realigned under the new bridge in a northeast direction to a new train
station. I think it would have been successful, a fun place for locals and visitors to enjoy.
http://www.robinshall.com/knotts-landing-sacramento

Robin Hall the award-winning theme designer returned my request for additional
info with this message. "We did the drawings for Knott's Landing in late 1996-into January 1997.
My boss; Terry Van Gorder, was always trying to get the Knott Family to expand the brand
and build other parks and Knott's Camp Snoopys in different locations around the world.
So I would draw up different proposed parks and we would present them. Unfortunately
the Family was very risk averse and didn't want to invest anything beyond the design and the branding."

[dragoncat12]

Hello I am a new user to skyscraper page and I have gone down the rabbit hole cancelled Sacramento projects. One proposal interested me was one called metro place and I cannot seem to find a picture of what it would look like. I know I'm a nerd on this stuff but I wonder if the picture is just gone from the internet or if some people still have it saved.

[innov8]

Welcome to the forum dragoncat12. It looks like on the first page of this thread the post for this proposal had expired photo links… so I reloaded them up again. I remember that it was an exciting time when this tower was proposed.

Metro Place was proposed in 1999/2000
32-story office/apartment
$127 million in construction costs
114 apartments on the top 10 stories
262,000 square feet of offices
20,562 square feet of retail on the ground floor
1,044 parking spaces. The whole building would be more than 850,000 square feet.
Would have received a $11 million subsidy from the City of Sacramento plus the city's quarter block of land valued at $4.8 million. The whole city package came to $16.7 million. The project never received funding because at this time around the nation office markets were in the doldrums and demand was sluggish.

Originally Posted by innov8

Metro Place
May 6, 2000 Sacramento Bee

This was proposed before the housing wave started in downtown/midtown.
A sweet tower for sure.

Originally Posted by innov8

Here's a link at the Biz Journal as to why is was not feasible...
Friday, April 26, 2002
Metro no place
A downtown Sacramento skyscraper with offices and apartments would have replaced a vacant lot -- if lenders hadn't been spooked
Dean Ingemanson's plan for a 32-story office/apartment building at the Metro Place site on 9th and J streets is defunct because it cannot secure financing in today's weak office market.
Shifting to a more feasible project, Ingemanson has signed a tentative agreement with a Southern California developer, CIM Group Inc., to build an apartment building of about five stories on the site.
Yet Ingemanson and others agree that if the hybrid tower had been built, it almost surely would have been commercially successful.
"The bottom line," Ingemanson said, "is that if I was able with a magic wand to get it built, it would have succeeded because of the low vacancy of class-A office space downtown and demand for downtown apartments."
On top of that, it would have been a stunning coup for the redevelopment officials who staunchly supported Ingemanson's dream of a mix of high-rise apartments with offices and ground-floor retail in downtown Sacramento. And it would have permanently removed one of the worst eyesores in the downtown area, a half-block long hole in the ground, walled off with a cheap plywood fence.
"I thought it was a great urban design project," said Andrew Plescia, the city's economic development director and a strong supporter. "It would have brought a lot of vitality and livability to downtown."
So what happened to this dandy redevelopment project that might have been a resounding commercial success?
The simple answer is that lenders wouldn't touch the $127 million venture. They were spooked by the national economic downturn, combined with a rising office vacancy nationally, especially in the Bay Area. It didn't matter that Sacramento itself is one of the nation's strongest office markets.
No magic wand, no money: Ingemanson's proposal called for a 32-story building to include 114 apartments on the top 10 stories, as well as about 262,000 square feet of offices and 20,562 square feet of retail on the ground floor, plus 1,044 parking spaces. The whole building would be more than 850,000 square feet -- almost as big as the nearby Downtown Plaza mall.
Metro Place would be built on the half block on the south side of J Street between 8th and 9th streets. Ingemanson controlled the western quarter block, while the city owns the eastern quarter.
In early 1999, Ingemanson purchased most of his portion out of bankruptcy court. He then proposed a partnership with the city to build the tower, and the city agreed to chip in an $11 million subsidy, plus the city's quarter block of land, valued at $4.8 million. The whole city package came to $16.7 million.
For redevelopment officials it was a dream come true. Metro Place, two blocks from City Hall, would have replaced a decade-old blight and replaced it with office workers who would shop downtown during the day and residents who would shop downtown after hours.
"It was a huge, wonderful step forward for the housing market downtown," said John Dangberg, executive director of the Capitol Area Development Authority and former redevelopment director for the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.
Renters were clearly very interested in the upper-story apartments. Despite high rents, the units would surely have leased, said Dangberg and others.
Office pundits agree that the office portion would eventually have paid off. Downtown Sacramento's office vacancy is 5 percent -- among the lowest in the nation.
Wrong time: But Ingemanson, looking for a loan of $70 million, showed up at the lenders' doors at the wrong time.
"The financial market is chasing stabilized, completed projects, and development projects are seen as higher risks," said Kevin Randles, a mortgage banker with the local office of L.J. Melody & Co., a Houston-based lender and subsidiary of CB Richard Ellis.
Around the nation, the office market is in the doldrums. Demand is sluggish and vacancies are up as a result of corporate America's slowdown during the past year. The Bay Area especially has seen horrendous vacancies and rental decreases as a result of high-tech's hard times.
Sacramento, less than 90 miles from the bay, is guilty by geographical association.
"Sacramento is the only big office market in the United State with single-digit vacancy rates," Randles said. "But we're seen as a sister city to the Bay Area, which is having a lot of trouble."
More here... http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...29/focus1.html